Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are paginated at 20 records per page and include canonical citations, which helps the agent plan retrieval. It omits auth/rate-limit or result-cap behavior, keeping it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the search capability is front-loaded and the pagination/return note follows. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The presence of an output schema means return-value detail is not required, and the description covers the primary filter set. However, with 8 parameters, very low schema coverage, and undocumented sort/locale/page semantics, an agent still lacks enough detail to fully exploit the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 13% (only the statuses field is documented in-schema), so the description must carry more weight. It maps its enumerated "country, category, status, buyer and text filters" onto the countries, categories, statuses, buyer and q parameters, adding real meaning, but says nothing about page, sort or locale.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search published tender notices") plus the filter dimensions it accepts, so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_public_tender_facets or list_public_tender_changes, so differentiation is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description names no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives such as get_public_tender_facets (facet counts) or get_public_tender (single record). "Combined ... filters" hints at multi-criteria search but gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.